www.sefindia.org :: View topic - WHY SOME CONSULTANTS SU... http://www.sefindia.org/forum/viewtopic.php?

t=12187

www.sefindia.org
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING FORUM OF INDIA [SEFI]

Search

Share 66k Follow @sefindia 2,495 followers

Subscriptions Digest Preferences FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register Security Tips Donate
Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in
Warning: Make sure you scan the downloaded attachment with updated antivirus tools before opening them. They may contain viruses.
Use online scanners here and here to upload downloaded attachment to check for safety.

WHY SOME CONSULTANTS SUGGEST AISC THAN IS-LSMD

Goto page 1, 2 Next

www.sefindia.org Forum Index -> SEFI Web Site Problems/

Login/Registration Issues

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

TBSPL_6 Posted: Tue May 22, 2012 6:34 pm Post subject: WHY SOME CONSULTANTS SUGGEST AISC THAN
SEFI Regulars IS-LSMD

HI SEFIANS
Joined: 17 Jan 2009
Posts: 26
COULD ANY ONE PLZ EXPLAIN FOLLOWING QUERY

1.WHY SOME CONSULTANTS SUGGEST AISC THAN IS-800-2007-LSMD ?

2.I KNOW THAT LL ARE LESS IN AISC COMPARED TO OUR IS-CODAL PROVISION , AND FACTOR
OFSAFETY IS ALSO LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO ONE IN THE LOAD COMBINATIONS , BT WHY?

3. WHY SOME PEOPLE SUGEEST MIXING OF BOTH CODES IF ONE IS FOR ANALYSIS ANOTHER IS
TO CHECK DEFLCTION CRITERIA. ?

4. ON WHAT BASIS THEY ARE PREFERRING AISC THAN 'IS CODE' , MOST OF THE PEB
STRUCTURES ARE ANLYSED AND DESIGNED WITH AISC. ?

COULD ANY ONE PLZ EXPLAIN WHAT IS THE MAIN ASSUMPTIONS , AND CONEPT BEHIND IT.

THANK YOU
TBSPL_6

Back to top

N. Prabhakar Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 7:21 am Post subject:

...

Dear Sefians,

In my opinion, the answers to the queries raised in this posting are the
following:

Joined: 25 Apr 2009

1. When there is an Indian Code IS 800 : 2007 for steel
Posts: 206 design, there is no need for anyone in India to refer to a
foreign code like that of AISC. More than the consultants, it
is the PEB manufacturers who normally specify the American
codes in their competitive offer which is generally accepted
by the client (owner) and the consultant/architect.

2. The main difference between the Indian Code and the other
American Codes is in the classification of the cross-section
of the steel member. As per Indian code, the classes of
section considered for design are Plastic, Compact and
Semi-compact. Class of Slender cross-section, particularly
with thin webs, are not considered for design as the elements

1 of 8 22-01-2015 16:26
www.sefindia.org :: View topic - WHY SOME CONSULTANTS SU... http://www.sefindia.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12187

buckle locally even before reaching yield stress. It is well

known that many PEB manufacturers use sections with very thin
webs in order to reduce the weight of the section and be
economical/competitive in their commercial offers, and these
thin webs do not satisfy the codal provisions of IS 800 :
2007.

3. To use codes of two different country, to suit one’s

requirement or convenience, is not a good engineering
practice, and code of only country is to be used throughout
unless there is no such provision exists in the code one is
using. The analysis part is not normally different between
the two codes, but the codal provisions for the safe
permissible stresses, deflection and other values do
differ. Besides, the properties of the material considered
in the code do vary from one country to the other. This
aspect cannot be easily assessed in the design.

4. As it is said earlier, the main reason to use the AISC

code for PEB structures is due the fact that it leads to an
economical structural solution as compared to the Indian
Code. In the present day cut-throat competition among PEB
manufacturers, the price of the structure that governs in the
end, and not the design considerations. It is possible that
AISC codes are misread and misused to suit their convenience
as many Indian engineers accepting this design are not fully
aware of all the provisions of AISC.

I trust that those who have had the experience of going through the design
of PEB structures will agree with the above observations.

With best wishes,

N. Prabhakar
Chartered Structural Engineer
Vasai (E)

Back to top

Dr. N. Subramanian Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 1:33 pm Post subject:
General Sponsor

Dear All,

I agree with most of the observations of Er Prabhakar.

Joined: 21 Feb 2008
Posts: 4848
Location: Gaithersburg, MD,
U.S.A.
But I want to comment on his observation "As per Indian code, the classes of section considered
for design are Plastic, Compact and Semi-compact. Class of Slender cross-section, particularly
with thin webs, are not considered for design as the elements buckle locally even before reaching
yield stress. It is well known that many PEB manufacturers use sections with very thin webs in
order to reduce the weight of the section and be economical/competitive in their commercial
offers, and these thin webs do not satisfy the codal provisions of IS 800 : 2007."
IS 800:2007 has not considered slender sections which are often encountered in cold formed thin
sections, because there is another code IS 801 for this (see page 19 of IS 800 where a note about
this is made). Hence people using cold formed sections can not use IS 800.

IS 801 is still under WSM and currently under revision. God only knows when it will be published
by BIS. Draft code may be ready-Prof Arul Jayachandran of IITM may throw some light on this
as he is heading the committee, I think. May me that is the reason people are using AISC code for
cold formed structures.

Er Prabhakar's comment "the main reason to use the AISC code for PEB structures is due the
fact that it leads to an economical structural solution as compared to the Indian Code" kindled
nostalgic memories. We used to design structures using cold formed sections for TI Metal
sections. My friend Er Vijayaraghavan was there at that time, who is very knowledgeable on RC
as well as Steel design and we used to discuss for hours about the design methods. I used to have
fruitful discussions with a young engineer of their company by name Er Elangovan (I believe he
is with Tiger Steel, another company engaged in PEB, but lost touch with him for 15 to 20 years).
We used to optimize the members sizes by using a IS 801 provision, which will not be normally

2 of 8 22-01-2015 16:26
www.sefindia.org :: View topic - WHY SOME CONSULTANTS SU... http://www.sefindia.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12187

considered by other designers-I do not have the code here, but I think it is the extra strength
available at the bends of the sections, due to strain hardening effects. My Ph.D. guide Prof.
Ganapathy of IITM, wrote a beautiful explanatory handbook on IS 801, which is still available
through BIS.

Best wishes
Subramanian

N. Prabhakar wrote:
Dear Sefians,
In my opinion, the answers to the queries raised in this posting
are the following:
1. When there is an Indian Code IS 800 : 2007 for
steel design, there is no need for anyone in India to
refer to a foreign code like that of AISC. More than
the consultants, it is the PEB manufacturers who
normally specify the American codes in their
competitive offer which is generally accepted by the
client (owner) and the consultant/architect.
2. The main difference between the Indian Code and the
other American Codes is in the classification of the
cross-section of the steel member. As per Indian code,
the classes of section considered for design are
Plastic, Compact and Semi-compact. Class of Slender
cross-section, particularly with thin webs, are not
considered for design as the elements buckle locally
even before reaching yield stress. It is well known
that many PEB manufacturers use sections with very thin
webs in order to reduce the weight of the section and
be economical/competitive in their commercial offers,
and these thin webs do not satisfy the codal provisions
of IS 800 : 2007.
3. To use codes of two different country, to suit
one’s requirement or convenience, is not a good
engineering practice, and code of only country is to be
used throughout unless there is no such provision
exists in the code one is using. The analysis part is
not normally different between the two codes, but the
codal provisions for the safe permissible stresses,
deflection and other values do differ. Besides, the
properties of the material considered in the code do
vary from one country to the other. This aspect cannot
be easily assessed in the design.
4. As it is said earlier, the main reason to use the
AISC code for PEB structures is due the fact that it
leads to an economical structural solution as compared
to the Indian Code. In the present day cut-throat
competition among PEB manufacturers, the price of the
structure that governs in the end, and not the design
considerations. It is possible that AISC codes are
misread and misused to suit their convenience as many
Indian engineers accepting this design are not fully
aware of all the provisions of AISC.
I trust that those who have had the experience of going through the
design of PEB structures will agree with the above observations.
With best wishes,
N. Prabhakar
Chartered Structural Engineer
Vasai (E)

Last edited by Dr. N. Subramanian on Wed May 23, 2012 1:39 pm; edited 1 time in total

Back to top

Dr. N. Subramanian Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 1:37 pm Post subject:
General Sponsor

Dear All,

in continuation to my posting, I want to discuss one more thing. In India, BIS is making small
codes for different items and making money. We need to integrate the codes. For example in ACI
318, they have integrated Prestressed concrete and EQ provisions. Whereas we have separate
codes for these things. When will we have unified codes? I request those in IS committees to
take up the issue with BIS.

Best wishes
Joined: 21 Feb 2008 NS
Posts: 4848
Location: Gaithersburg, MD,
U.S.A.

3 of 8 22-01-2015 16:26
www.sefindia.org :: View topic - WHY SOME CONSULTANTS SU... http://www.sefindia.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12187

Back to top

TBSPL_6 Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 5:12 pm Post subject: WHY LIVE LOAD IS LESS ?
SEFI Regulars

DEAR PRABHAKAR SIR/ DN SUBRAMANYAM SIR

Joined: 17 Jan 2009

Posts: 26 THANK YOU ALOT FOR YOUR VALUABLE CLARIFICATION

AND ALSO PLZ EXPALIN FURTHER TO MY SECOND QUERY , i.e

2. WHY LIVE LOAD IS CONSIDERED LESS IN THE AISC, COMPARED TO 'IS CODE'

Back to top

Dr. N. Subramanian Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 7:34 pm Post subject: Re: WHY LIVE LOAD IS LESS ?
General Sponsor

Dear Er TBSPL,

In most of the international codes a partial load factor of 1.6 is adopted for LL and a factor of 1.4
for DL. it is because DL can be calculated precisely than LL. For simplicity IS 875 uses a factor of
1.5 for Both LL and DL.

The LL specified in IS 875 (Part 2) is higher than than those found in earlier load surveys (See
more on this in my book on Design of steel structures, pp. 142)

Joined: 21 Feb 2008 Best wishes

Posts: 4848 NS
Location: Gaithersburg, MD,
TBSPL_6 wrote:
U.S.A.
DEAR PRABHAKAR SIR/ DN SUBRAMANYAM SIR

THANK YOU ALOT FOR YOUR VALUABLE CLARIFICATION

AND ALSO PLZ EXPALIN FURTHER TO MY SECOND QUERY , i.e

2. WHY LIVE LOAD IS CONSIDERED LESS IN THE AISC, COMPARED TO 'IS CODE'

Back to top

sandeep_chauhan Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 9:04 am Post subject:

General Sponsor

It is a very good question asked by Tata Bluescope Engineer.

I am agree with Prabhakar sir, that we are still using AISC code to analyse PEB Buildings.

I am also working for a Pre-Engineered Building (PEB) & i have Designed more than 100 PEBs in
INDIA.
If i see the codes used for the buildings design by me are:
almost 85 buildings are as per AISC/MBMA/AISI
almost 15 buildings are as per IS-800:1984/IS-875/IS-801
and only one building is as per IS-800:2007/IS-875/IS-801
Joined: 27 Mar 2012
Posts: 110 According to me, the problem in using IS-800:2007 is :
1. It is not a good practice to analyse primary member(portal frame) as per Limit State method
and Secondary member(Purlin, girts,cladding etc) as per Working stress method,in same building.
2. I feel that the Deflection Criteria is not given clearly in IS-800:2007. the load combinations
given in Table-4 for Serviceability are not match with the load combinations given for deflection
check as given in Table-6 of IS:800-2007.
3. Design & Detailing for Earthquake loads as per Chapter-12 is given in Brief. There should be a
Explanatory by BIS for Chapter-12.
Even the book on "Design of steel structures" available in india, does not cover the Chapter-12.
Also i am requesting to Subramanian Sir that please put a Example in our favourite book(DESIGN
OF STEEL STRUCTURES-N.SUBRAMANIAN) for Regid Moment Connection Design, according to
Chapter-12

Regards
Sandeep Chauhan

Back to top

Dr. N. Subramanian Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 12:10 pm Post subject:
General Sponsor

4 of 8 22-01-2015 16:26
www.sefindia.org :: View topic - WHY SOME CONSULTANTS SU... http://www.sefindia.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12187

Dear Er Sandeep,

Are not Examples 6.15 to 6.26 moment connections?

Best wishes
NS

sandeep_chauhan wrote:
It is a very good question asked by Tata Bluescope Engineer.
I am agree with Prabhakar sir, that we are still using AISC code to analyse PEB Buildings.
Joined: 21 Feb 2008
Posts: 4848 I am also working for a Pre-Engineered Building (PEB) & i have Designed more than 100 PEBs
Location: Gaithersburg, MD, in INDIA.
U.S.A. If i see the codes used for the buildings design by me are:
almost 85 buildings are as per AISC/MBMA/AISI
almost 15 buildings are as per IS-800:1984/IS-875/IS-801
and only one building is as per IS-800:2007/IS-875/IS-801

According to me, the problem in using IS-800:2007 is :

1. It is not a good practice to analyse primary member(portal frame) as per Limit State
method and Secondary member(Purlin, girts,cladding etc) as per Working stress method,in
same building.
2. I feel that the Deflection Criteria is not given clearly in IS-800:2007. the load combinations
given in Table-4 for Serviceability are not match with the load combinations given for
deflection check as given in Table-6 of IS:800-2007.
3. Design & Detailing for Earthquake loads as per Chapter-12 is given in Brief. There should be
a Explanatory by BIS for Chapter-12.
Even the book on "Design of steel structures" available in india, does not cover the
Chapter-12.
Also i am requesting to Subramanian Sir that please put a Example in our favourite
book(DESIGN OF STEEL STRUCTURES-N.SUBRAMANIAN) for Regid Moment Connection
Design, according to Chapter-12

Regards
Sandeep Chauhan

Back to top

N. Prabhakar Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 2:54 pm Post subject:

...

Dear Sefians,

In continuation of my earlier posting on the subject, I would like to add

the following:

Joined: 25 Apr 2009 The PEB structures what we are discussing are not the structures of light
Posts: 206 weight type, low-rise or short span buildings where cold-worked steel
sections can be used. Because these sections are very thin compared to
their widths, buckling at low stress values will result under compression,
shear, bending and bearing. The critical buckling is generally of a local
nature followed by an overall buckling of the member. Because of this
deficiency, the usage of cold-worked steel section for a heavily loaded
compression member is very limited. At best, it can be used as a bending
member of small spans. In industrial type structures, the most popular usage
of cold-worked steel as a structural member is in Z and C shaped sections
for roof purlins and side sheeting rails which are no doubt economical as
compared to hot rolled angle and channel sections. The usage of these Z and
C sections for purlins and sheeting rails is invariably based on the actual
full-scale load tests conducted by the manufacturer of these sections, and
BS 5950 has given empirical equations to check on the size of the members
supplied by the manufacturer.

The PEB structures supplied in India are mainly industrial type, large span
warehouses, factory buildings, etc. For these type of structures
which carry heavy loads and sometime with crane installation, hot-rolled
sections are normally used to avoid buckling failures of the type that occur
in structures with thin cold-worked steel. For PEB structures,
manufacturers prefer to use built-up sections instead of the hot-rolled
sections to arrive at an economical solution. In one industrial structure
with crane, I have come across, the PEB manufacturer has used an I shaped
built-up section made of 496mm deep x 4mm thick web and 220mm wide x 10mm
thick flanges for a column section subjected to axial load and bending
moment. With d/tw ratio of 124 which is more than the limiting value of 42,
it is classified as a slender member as per Table 2 of IS 800 : 2007, and

5 of 8 22-01-2015 16:26
www.sefindia.org :: View topic - WHY SOME CONSULTANTS SU... http://www.sefindia.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12187

also by other international codes viz. BS 5950,the EuroCode EC3, and AISC
code. This slender section can cause local buckling even before reaching
yield stress which may result overall failure of the structure. While
designing this column section, a well known software is used by the PEB
designers which considers only the overall member strength by satisfying
only the stress requirements, ignoring the aspect of local buckling of the
thin web. No stiffeners are provided to the web as a remedial measure.
This deficiency is mainly because of the designer’s aim in economizing the
size of the fabricated built-up section, ignoring the codal provisions on
the section classification. The above aspect is a very serious matter as
far as the safety and stability of the structure is concerned.

The PEB designers are also accused of mixing too many codes to satisfy the
economic requirement. They calculate the loads as per IS 875, but do the
design as per AISC or AISI ,MBMA, and use welds as per AWS. If they feel
that the steel section is lighter as per one code, they will adopt that
clause of the code and select another clause of another code of another
country for the design of some other part of the same building. Some PEB
designers select some clauses of previous versions of the code and other
clauses of the latest versions. It seems, PEB design teams are on constant
research in the selection of codal provisions of various countries and are
on trials with different clauses. This way of mixing too many codes is
not valid by any means. If the loads and codes are not specified by the
buyer, it is binding on the PEB manufacturer to use the local codes of
practice. The consultants who are proof-checking the design of PEB
structures should do a thorough job, and do not be carried away by the name
of well known software used or to the reference of a foreign code.

With best wishes,

N. Prabhakar
Chartered Structural Engineer
Vasai (E)

Back to top

Dr. N. Subramanian Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 3:25 pm Post subject:
General Sponsor

Dear Er Prabhakar,

Thank you very much for explaining the situation in detail. I was not aware of that. It is a bad
practice indeed!

Regards,
Subramanian
N. Prabhakar wrote:
Dear Sefians,
Joined: 21 Feb 2008
Posts: 4848 In continuation of my earlier posting on the subject, I would like
Location: Gaithersburg, MD, to add the following:
U.S.A.
The PEB structures what we are discussing are not the structures of
light weight type, low-rise or short span buildings where
cold-worked steel sections can be used. Because these sections are
very thin compared to their widths, buckling at low stress values
will result under compression, shear, bending and bearing. The
critical buckling is generally of a local nature followed by an
overall buckling of the member. Because of this deficiency, the
usage of cold-worked steel section for a heavily loaded compression
member is very limited. At best, it can be used as a bending
member of small spans. In industrial type structures, the most
popular usage of cold-worked steel as a structural member is in Z
and C shaped sections for roof purlins and side sheeting rails
which are no doubt economical as compared to hot rolled angle and
channel sections. The usage of these Z and C sections for purlins
and sheeting rails is invariably based on the actual full-scale
load tests conducted by the manufacturer of these sections, and BS
5950 has given empirical equations to check on the size of the
members supplied by the manufacturer.

The PEB structures supplied in India are mainly industrial type,

large span warehouses, factory buildings, etc. For these type of
structures which carry heavy loads and sometime with crane
installation, hot-rolled sections are normally used to avoid
buckling failures of the type that occur in structures with thin

6 of 8 22-01-2015 16:26
www.sefindia.org :: View topic - WHY SOME CONSULTANTS SU... http://www.sefindia.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12187

cold-worked steel. For PEB structures, manufacturers prefer to use

built-up sections instead of the hot-rolled sections to arrive at
an economical solution. In one industrial structure with crane, I
have come across, the PEB manufacturer has used an I shaped
built-up section made of 496mm deep x 4mm thick web and 220mm wide
x 10mm thick flanges for a column section subjected to axial load
and bending moment. With d/tw ratio of 124 which is more than the
limiting value of 42, it is classified as a slender member as per
Table 2 of IS 800 : 2007, and also by other international codes
viz. BS 5950,the EuroCode EC3, and AISC code. This slender section
can cause local buckling even before reaching yield stress which
may result overall failure of the structure. While designing this
column section, a well known software is used by the PEB designers
which considers only the overall member strength by satisfying only
the stress requirements, ignoring the aspect of local buckling of
the thin web. No stiffeners are provided to the web as a remedial
measure. This deficiency is mainly because of the designer’s aim
in economizing the size of the fabricated built-up section,
ignoring the codal provisions on the section classification. The
above aspect is a very serious matter as far as the safety and
stability of the structure is concerned.

The PEB designers are also accused of mixing too many codes to
satisfy the economic requirement. They calculate the loads as per
IS 875, but do the design as per AISC or AISI ,MBMA, and use welds
as per AWS. If they feel that the steel section is lighter as per
one code, they will adopt that clause of the code and select
another clause of another code of another country for the design
of some other part of the same building. Some PEB designers select
some clauses of previous versions of the code and other clauses of
the latest versions. It seems, PEB design teams are on constant
research in the selection of codal provisions of various countries
and are on trials with different clauses. This way of mixing too
many codes is not valid by any means. If the loads and codes are
not specified by the buyer, it is binding on the PEB manufacturer
to use the local codes of practice. The consultants who are proof-
checking the design of PEB structures should do a thorough job, and
do not be carried away by the name of well known software used or
to the reference of a foreign code.

With best wishes,

N. Prabhakar
Chartered Structural Engineer
Vasai (E)

Back to top

Display posts from previous: All Posts Oldest First Go

www.sefindia.org Forum Index -> SEFI Web Site All times are GMT
Problems/ Login/Registration Issues Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2

Jump to: SEFI Web Site Problems/ Login/Registration Issues Go

Translation: Translate topic Go
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

© 2003, 2008 SEFINDIA, Indian Domain Registration

7 of 8 22-01-2015 16:26
www.sefindia.org :: View topic - WHY SOME CONSULTANTS SU... http://www.sefindia.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12187

Structural Engineering Forum of India

You like this.

Structural Engineering Forum of India shared Phoenix Webtech Private Limited's album.
5 hrs

You and 66,043 others like Structural Engineering Forum of India.

Facebook social plugin

powered by
tsunami OPB News - Can Coastal Communities Survive A Tsunami?

powered by
earthquake NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth - Five Earthquakes Reported in Irving Tuesday: USGS

8 of 8 22-01-2015 16:26